Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, at the heart of Democrats' border security policies is the assumption that America can assume an unlimited number of illegal immigrants without considering its impact on jobs, communities, security, and, in today's world, health.

This assumption defies all historical evidence. More importantly, it defies the evidence right before our very eyes.

Madam Speaker, in the last month alone, Border Patrol apprehended the largest surge of migrants in 20 years, 172,000 individuals in one single month. By September, we are on track to encounter 2 million illegal immigrants. Now, that is about twice the size of the population of Delaware, President Biden's home State.

The surge was directly caused by the actions of the Biden administration. On day one, President Biden issued five executive orders that reversed the commonsense immigration policies that were working.

Then his administration sent mixed signals to migrants that now is not the time to come, but promising not to deport children and many families.

Now, as Monday's order demonstrates, the White House is more concerned with policing Border Patrol's language than it is protecting our border.

I am very glad that President Biden finally admitted that there is a crisis at the border, but what we really need is for him to admit that his policies and rhetoric caused the crisis to begin with.

The results of this crisis are as predictable as they are disastrous, for both migrants and American citizens. Just this past weekend, the Biden administration was forced to shut down a Houston migrant center for children because of unbearable conditions. Hundreds of unaccompanied minors had to be shuttled somewhere else.

I know everybody in this body understands that that is heartbreaking. It is also a public health risk. That is because the Biden administration is releasing migrants into American cities without negative COVID tests, without court dates, and without a way to track where they will go. Already, that number is up to 15,000.

Now, Madam Speaker, that doesn't come from me. I saw it on the news today from a Democratic colleague who put this number out and said it was disastrous.

But the border crisis isn't just a humanitarian and public health crisis. It is also a national security crisis. Last month, I shared some alarming news. When I was down on the border, I was speaking to the Border Patrol agents, and they informed me that individuals on the terrorist watch list were caught trying to enter our country.

Madam Speaker, I know how much you care about protecting this country from terrorism. I thought everybody on your side of the aisle would care just as much. Unfortunately, Congressman Gallego accused me of lying. Congresswoman Escobar said I was trying to fuel division, Madam Speaker.

But the Customs and Border Protection agency confirmed that four suspected terrorists had been caught. Since then, more suspected terrorists have been caught at different times and different places, from Yemen, but not on the same day; two different individuals.

Now, I am sure, maybe because of the challenges with COVID and the distance we must keep, that I have not received the apology of being accused of being a liar on a national security issue, but I assume that will come shortly.

The security problem also includes a flow of drugs. When I was on that same border in El Paso, talking to some of those same agents, they told me they have never seen the amount of fentanyl that has come across the border in the last month. Americans are dying because the cartels are exploiting the Biden border crisis to make a profit. Fentanyl overdoses are surging across the country.

Now, in my home State, Madam Speaker, the Speaker's hometown of San Francisco saw more fentanyl-related deaths last year than COVID-related deaths, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Madam Speaker, it is hard to imagine anything more shortsighted than doubling down on Biden's failed border policies. But, incredibly, as I sit on this floor, the House Democrats want to respond to this humanitarian, public health, and national security crisis by passing recycled legislation from the last Congress.

I know, Madam Speaker, the Speaker doesn't want us to work in committees and wants to do it from afar, but I still think we could have new ideas to a bigger problem created by a new administration.

They want to strip future Presidents of their authority to keep Americans safe. That is what the NO BAN Act does.

They also want to grant foreign nationals access to lawyers. But foreign nationals have never been entitled to this privilege before, and it will cost taxpayers $825 million over the next 5 years. That may not sound like much if you just want to throw trillions out there, but that is hardworking taxpayers' money. It is a lot of money.

But are Democrats working to repair the crisis its radical policies caused? No.

Are they working to stop the mass flow of illegal migration? No.

Are they working to secure our borders? No.

Vice President Harris has refused to visit the border for 28 days.

By contrast, more than one-third of the House Republicans have been to the border and seen the crisis for themselves. There have even been some bipartisan trips, Madam Speaker. And I was very excited to hear that, in the bipartisan trip, questions were asked.

My understanding was the very first question one of our Democrat colleagues asked was: Is it really true we are catching terrorists?

And the shock on their face when the border agent said: Yes, from the terrorist watch list, we have caught them.

What is really concerning to me, if you read The Washington Post, is the thousands of people who come across per day who are not caught.

How many terrorists are in that group? How much fentanyl are those people carrying?

What we learned has led directly to the action we have taken here in Congress.

Two weeks ago, Dr. Miller-Meeks introduced a bill to require a negative COVID-19 test before any illegal immigrant is released from custody.

Madam Speaker, I was shocked that your side of the aisle blocked it.

Last week, Representative Carter and Representative Peter Meijer offered a motion to combat the trafficking of fentanyl analogues, which are 100 times deadlier than regular fentanyl.

Democrats blocked it, even though 137 of them voted for the same motion last year.

Can you imagine that, Madam Speaker? 137 on your side of the aisle voted just last year for that amendment. I guess things have changed.

Madam Speaker, Congress needs to do the right thing here. We should not be wasting our time on recycled legislation that weakens our national security. We simply need to return to commonsense border security policies that work.

We need to finish the wall and deploy technology to the border.

We need to fully reinstate the ``remain in Mexico'' policy and maintain the robustly implemented Title 42 authority.

We need to require a negative COVID test before releasing migrants. I think that would be common sense. Most Americans have to have that.

We need to send a clear message: Do not come to the United States illegally.

Madam Speaker, if we want to fix the crisis, we need to fix its root cause. But that root cause isn't only in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras; it is right here in Washington, D.C.

You see, Madam Speaker, before the crisis hit, there wasn't legislation that was passed. It was just on day one with executive orders. So all they have to do is do the exact same thing they did, take the pen and bring them back. Let's bring common sense back to solutions.

Madam Speaker, why don't we bring new ideas to committees? Why don't we have Members show up for work? And why don't we have committees actually work instead of just picking old ideas when they have created a new problem that will only expand it further?

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer H. Res. 331.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague David G. Valadao, to honor Matthew Constantine for his nearly three decades of public service to our community. After dedicating 27 years of his life to government service, and protecting the health and safety of the people of Kern County, an area that I represent, Matt is concluding his tenure this month as the Director of Kern County Public Health Services Department for Kern County, a position he has held since 2009.

Matt was born and raised in Bakersfield, California and earned both his bachelor's and graduate degree from California State University, Northridge. His family has had roots in Bakersfield for five generations, and he has worked at various levels of government, including with the Federal Indian Health Service and the State of California. In 2006, he was hired as Kem County's Director of Environmental Services. In 2009, Matt spearheaded the merger between two different departments and became the Director of Public Health Services for the county.

Matt had already informed the Kern County Board of Supervisors of his intent to retire as the Director of Public Health Services when the Coronavirus pandemic hit. But instead of retiring, Matt stayed on to serve our community and began crafting a plan to reduce patient caseloads at local hospitals and keep the people of Kern County healthy and safe. During his time with the Department of Public Health Services, Matt always displayed leadership, especially over the course of this stressful past year, by balancing local needs with state mandates while never shying away from making tough decisions. Despite many early days and long nights, Matt's work ethic has been critical for our local response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was exemplified by the routine COVID-19 updates he gave to the residents of the county over the last 12 months, and despite the State of California's constantly changing guidance for residents and public health officials, Matt always had one goal in mind--to create and execute a plan to combat the transmission of the virus in our community and keep mortality rates in Kern County down until a vaccine was able to be offered to every resident who wanted one.

Matt is more than just the leader of our local public health response; he is an active member of the Kern County community. He serves on the board of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce and the Kern County Network for Children, where his vision and expertise have been influential in making decisions and impacting others.

I always appreciated Matt's insight and wisdom on the public health matters affecting our community, and although we are going to miss Matt, I am confident that his record of success will continue to benefit our county for years to come. On behalf of the people of the 23rd Congressional District of California, and the people of Kern County as a whole, I want to thank Matt for his service to our community, and I wish him only the best as he embarks on the next chapter in his life.

Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns about the current composition of the Intelligence Committee. The Intel Committee handles our Nation's highest secrets. It has access to information that most Members do not see. And unlike standing committees, Members of the majority are appointed by the Speaker only.

That is why Members who are appointed to this important committee must possess the highest level of credibility and character, and it is why no Member should be compromised in any way.

Unfortunately, information that I have seen and that others have seen suggests that not all Members meet this high standard. So earlier this week, I introduced a resolution to restore confidence in the Intel Committee's ability to safeguard our Nation's secrets.

Now, I do not take this action lightly or for political reasons. Frankly, I am surprised that it had to come to this. The Speaker and I received the same classified briefing from the FBI. The details were deeply disturbing. Yet, so far, the allegations, which have not been denied, have gone unaddressed.

As the House considers this question, I hope all Members will reflect on the purpose and responsibilities of the select panel. I want all Members to ask this one question:

Should a Member who can't get a security clearance in the private sector sit on the House Intelligence Committee?

Think about that for one moment.

Should a Member who cannot get a security clearance in the private sector sit on the House Intelligence Committee?

The American people deserve to know that their government is not vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, by adopting my resolution, we will show that we have our priorities straight. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican leader of the Judiciary for yielding. He is correct that when the Republicans were in the majority, they brought two bills to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman and others, and even the majority leader, that not one Democrat voted for either of those bills. Not one Democrat voted for a bill to move to the Senate. They actually denied the bill from going to the Senate, even if you wanted to change it to become law. That is just a little truth in history.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something that President Biden refuses to say. There is a crisis on our southern border. It is a humanitarian crisis. It is a public health crisis, a national security crisis. It is a Biden border crisis, and it is spiraling out of control with no signs of ending.

When candidate Biden told migrants in June to immediately surge to the border, I knew his immigration policies would be bad. But I did not think it would be this bad. I did not think that would mean 13,000 unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody.

I did not think it would mean moving them from border facilities across the country: 1,000 of them went to Midland Texas; 3,000 to Dallas; and, likely, to more cities tomorrow.

I did not think the Biden administration would require COVID tests for American citizens entering the country, but not for illegal immigrants.

I did not think Biden's own DHS Secretary would have to admit that we are ``on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years,'' Mr. Speaker.

I did not think I would hear the President of Mexico refer to our President Joe Biden as the ``migrant President.''

And I did not think it would only take 2 months to create the worst border crisis in the history of America.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened. When I visited the border on Monday, one thing was abundantly clear: This crisis started at midnight on January 20.

Mr. Speaker, it started when President Biden stopped building the wall, even though there are only a few miles left to complete. When he made that decision, he had to pay more money to the contractors to break the contract. It started when he promised to make all 11 million illegal immigrants citizens.

Now, my colleague from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) spoke with a family from Honduras about their journey to the border. He asked them how long the trek was. They said it was 22 days. The story of this family is a story we have heard from many and it is not unique.

You see, thousands decided to cross the border now because of President Biden's promises and policies. They listened to him in June when he said: You need to surge the border.

As one migrant family recently told FOX News: Yes, I listened to the news that they were letting people in.

When I was there Monday, I was speaking to the border agents, the American citizens, and the migrants. The number one thing was clear: the crisis at the border is the worst they have ever seen.

When we went to El Paso, we toured the new processing facility. We built it under the last administration. It is huge, 98,000 square feet. And when I asked the chief patrol agent, Chief Chavez said: We built it so large with capacity, we didn't believe it could ever meet capacity.

But that day we marked history. That day they hit capacity: 1,040 people, mostly children unaccompanied.

You know what it meant when you hit capacity?

That meant 120 border agents got pulled off the border to protect us to go into the center. That is what a crisis looks like, even if the administration won't say it.

We also saw overworked Border Patrol agents in the El Paso facility. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank them. What they are being asked to do is extraordinary: the pressure on them, the pressure from the administration not to allow press to see what is happening; the pressure of being over capacity with the number of people there; the pressure to do it under a pandemic. That is what a crisis looks like.

When we sat and talked to the doctor from the medical unit, he told us that approximately 10 percent of every immigrant has COVID, but they are not tested. You see, that is only for American citizens when they reenter. But they are not tested and they are sent to other cities.

And, as many of you know here, you could be tested and you are positive, but the person you have been standing around, put into one unit for a number of days, sleeping very close next to, after you have interacted the entire time in one unit, a closed unit, that you will become positive in the next 5 days. But that is okay because you will be shipped to another city. But that city has been trying to combat this pandemic. Who knows what happens next.

And the most alarming, Mr. Speaker, was when we were briefed in Monument Three in El Paso. They told us that they caught people on the terrorist watch list. I know that the Speaker would be concerned about that. I was alarmed. I questioned further. It is not just people on the terrorist watch list. We found people from other nations, from Iran, from Turkey.

Mr. Speaker, when I went to the press conference right after that, I mentioned that because I think every American--one terrorist is too much in this Nation that could get through. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you believe that, too.

But Congressman Gallego, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations--and

he also represents a border State--I thought he would tweet arm-in-arm to stop this.

But you know what the gentleman said, Mr. Speaker?

He tweeted on Monday that I was ``either lying or I was wrong'' because he hadn't heard anything about it. I believe he even challenged me because he had such high clearance because he is on Intel.

And Congresswoman Escobar, who represents part of El Paso, I thought the gentlewoman would be very concerned, too, because this is where they are entering, where they caught these people on a terrorist watch list. Not everybody gets put on one. Mr. Speaker, what she said was that I was trying to ``fuel the division'' because I just said that a terrorist was caught coming through.

But, on Tuesday, Axios confirmed that four people matching terrorist watch lists were arrested at the border, three from Yemen and one from Serbia.

Biden's DHS Secretary also confirmed that this indeed happened. I am not sure if their Twitter account is down or if they have been blocked, but I have not heard an apology or a correction. I know Twitter does that to Members of Congress, but I hope they are back on and I will soon get the apology or the acknowledgment of a correction and the respect.

If Members with security clearance haven't heard about the terrorist threats on the border, I suggest they pay closer attention to the classified briefings.

Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for this crisis rests squarely on the shoulders of President Biden. After weeks of claiming they could handle it, his administration is now attempting to blame the growing crisis on the previous President. But nothing could be further from the truth. Words and actions have meanings, and Biden has sent the message that our border is open.

So there is no question that President Biden provoked the problem. The question is: How can we stop it?

Mr. Speaker, when I was there in El Paso, 150 miles of the wall was supposed to be built. But at midnight on January 20, 133 miles had been finished. Instead of finishing the project, they stopped. You could go to the ranch where they took down the old barrier because they were going to put up the new wall, and there is nothing there. It is not just people coming across illegally, but animals move back and forth.

So far, the Biden administration congressional Democrats aren't providing any solutions. Mr. Speaker, we want to solve this problem. That is why I sent a letter to the President 2 weeks ago to sit down. When the President said immigrants should surge to the border, we understood what he meant. So all those who were seeking asylum automatically got in, COVID or not, no tests required.

We saw that the Biden administration told migrants: We aren't saying don't come; just don't come now. You see, that was from the Secretary. Those are really strong words.

But, Mr. Speaker, what moved me the most was speaking to border agents, one who was a father, and one that was a mother, talking about the unaccompanied children. He told me a story of coming upon children, a one-year-old, a three-year-old, and a five-year-old all holding hands. No one in sight for miles away. It is remarkable that they got there.

But the question is: How many didn't make it? How many lives have been lost or abused, simply because they heard a message, or you stopped the PACR program, or you changed from ``remain in Mexico,'' or you stopped finishing the wall that was almost complete?

Mr. Speaker, those who defend the border told me that they have never seen so much fentanyl as they have in the last month. They have never seen the tactics that were used of storming the wall all at once. Just in this one small section, if you looked--it would just go a number of blocks--100 to 200 people a night are apprehended.

We saw last week, with the Democrat's so-called COVID relief bill, $22 billion in healthcare subsidies that illegal immigrants are eligible for, another clear message. But zero dollars are dedicated to helping the men and women patrolling the border.

Mr. Speaker, they need the help. They are stretched so thin. They are stretched so thin, in the middle of COVID, where they are dealing with something where they are not even testing for COVID but they have to interact.

This new facility, 98,000 square feet, is a beautiful facility. It has already met capacity for the first time in history with the new administration. But if you look across into the parking lot, the dirt parking lot, where the border agents have to park, they were moving their cars. They had to put up tents, because the surge is so great. You see, they listened to the words of candidate Biden and they watched the actions of President Biden.

But there is no new money. I know that COVID bill was the--well, we shouldn't call it COVID. It is less than 9 percent for COVID. But, Mr. Speaker, do you realize in that bill, prisoners will get more money than the Border Patrol? Do you realize that they are going to have to use their own operation money that is stretched so thin? So not only can the Border Patrol not be on the border, now they are taking any money for the future to deal with the surge today.

The American people deserve leaders who will work with the seriousness of purpose, what this crisis requires. That is why I wrote a letter to President Biden 2 weeks ago asking to meet about the crisis. Since then, the crisis has only gotten worse, but, unfortunately, the President still hasn't responded. Today, I sent President Biden a second letter offering to relay what we learned at the border, since he refuses to go there. But I believe he would benefit from a hearing of what we saw and heard.

Mr. Speaker, if the President won't go there and the President puts orders to deny the press from learning so the American people can't know, I think it would behoove him to hear from the people who are there.

I also introduced five solutions based on the information from our trip. All of them are rooted in the basic idea that we are both a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are proud of your heritage, and I am proud of mine, like every single American. I know how many of us come from immigrant families. I know when you walk into my office, where you have been, Mr. Speaker, you look on my wall and you will see the documents from Ellis Island. April 23 of this year will mark the 100th anniversary of my grandfather, Guido Palladino, coming from Italy as a young child, boarding a ship to come here for a better life.

You see, America believes in immigration, but there is no time to break the law and come illegally. There is a process to come here.

If we implement now these commonsense solutions, it will help to stop the border crisis.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Biden border crisis is a humanitarian, health, and national security crisis, and it is deteriorating quickly.

To protect our citizens from further harm, our Government must send a clear and united message to the citizens of Mexico and Central America. That message is simple: There is never a right time to break the law and enter the United States illegally.

The time for delay, denial, and distraction is over.

Mr. Speaker, I know you care about this issue. I know you care about what is happening at the border. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, convey that to the President. If he cares as much as you, he will travel there. I know it is tough to travel, but when you have Air Force One--and I know he has got a schedule--it is not far to fly to the border. His own Secretary has said this is the worst it has been in 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, there is not one law that has passed here that created that crisis.

Mr. Speaker, to all your constituents and all of those in America, there are terrorists who have been caught; there are children walking in the desert by themselves; there are cartels making a fortune off the parts and disadvantaging of America.

We are in the middle of a pandemic where people are not being tested but shipped to other cities. This isn't political, Mr. Speaker. This is about this Nation. Join with us on our letter. Let's solve this problem together.

Madam Speaker, I rise to raise a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 243) removing a certain Member from a certain committee of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Congressman Jason Smith for his work as the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Democrats in the House are excited because all their work has even transpired all the way to Nevada, because now the socialist Democratic wing of the party has taken over there as well.

From H.R. 1 to voting to defund the police, House Democrats have abandoned any pretense of unity. They passed three major bills in one month with zero bipartisan support.

Today, they plan to pass another. Like the others, it represents a missed opportunity for Congress to focus on the real needs of the American people. At $1.9 trillion in new spending, the so-called American Rescue Plan is the most expensive single bill in American history.

Let's put that number in context, Mr. Speaker. If you put it in today's numbers, World War II cost our government $4.8 trillion. But if we pass this bill, our country's total relief, COVID relief, spending will now total $5.5 trillion. This so-called relief bill will end up costing every hardworking taxpayer in America more than $5,000 each. You send the government your tax dollars, but you only get a fraction of what you pay for, at the very best.

You know, we warn people on the internet about email scams. It is like one of those emails where you get a promise you will get millions of dollars, but first you have to wire them some money. That is exactly what is happening here today.

This is the reality of the bill before us. It showers money on special interests, but spends less than 9 percent on actually defeating the virus. But it gives San Francisco $600 million, essentially wiping out 92 percent of their budget deficit.

Think about that: 9 percent on the virus. But, Mr. Speaker, San Francisco, the home to our Speaker, gets to wipe out 92 percent of their budget deficit.

Where does that money come from?

Well, every American is now going to pay more than $5,000 so we can send it to San Francisco and give them 92 percent of their budget deficit. Interesting how socialism works.

In both the House and the Senate, the only bipartisan vote has been against this. And after five relief bills, it is on track to be the first passed by strictly party lines.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard people across the country say this bill today is costly, corrupt, and liberal. Now even the Biden White House agrees: It is very liberal. They called this the most progressive piece of legislation in history.

For those who are watching, progressive means socialism, the same party that runs here, and now the Democratic Party of Nevada is the socialist Democratic Party.

So let's be clear. This isn't a rescue bill. It isn't a relief bill. It is a laundry list of left-wing priorities that predate the pandemic and do not meet the needs of American families. No wonder even House Democrats have said they are embarrassed by what is in it. And just this week, one of their own Members said, ``There is no question there is some waste in there.'' But they will still vote for it anyway.

In fact, if you are a member of the swamp, you do pretty well under this bill. But for the American people, it means serious problems immediately on the horizon.

Consider this: Mr. Speaker, it will only be Democrats who vote for this bill that will cause $36 billion in cuts to Medicare starting this year. What they choose to do is cut Medicare to those who need it and send $600 million to San Francisco to pay for 92 percent of their budget deficit.

Or consider K-12 education. Democrats say they need $130 billion to reopen schools, but their bill only allocates $6 billion to help schools this fiscal year. Two-thirds of the total funding for education won't even be spent until 2023 or later.

But don't worry, San Francisco will get their money now. The schools need to wait. You have priorities.

Do Democrats expect schools to reopen 2 years from now?

I guess that is what they are saying with this bill. They have no plan to get children back in the classroom full time.

This week marks the 1-year anniversary of school districts across the country switching to school behind a screen. We still don't know the full effects of this decision, but we do know keeping classrooms closed has created an education and mental health problem for students and parents. It has been a lost year for our children's education. And even more devastating, one in four young adults has struggled with suicidal thoughts.

Experience and scientific evidence say reopen schools now. It is necessary and it is safe.

Mr. Speaker, the last time this bill was on the floor, we offered an amendment to take that money for that subway just outside of San Francisco and put that money for the children's mental health and others. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all the Democrats said was, no; that subway by San Francisco was more important.

But, fortunately, we were able to remove that from the bill in the Senate. But luckily here, all the Democrats were able to think the priority is not children; it was San Francisco. But because Democrats are following the demands of special interests, not science, they are telling children to wait with no end in sight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the Democrats on the other side because they put their money where their mouth is. They are telling the American public: First give me $5,000. I know you have to work harder, but what I am going to do--because this is how socialism works, the Democrats are now going to decide who should get that money. And you know what? At least they give it to the people they respect the most.

So let's go through this. Compared to the subsidies for the swamp, Democrats want to give Federal employees, who have not been laid off, an extra $21,000 to help cope with virtual schooling. But if you are in the private sector or if you have been laid off, you don't get any of that. But what they want to do is take the money from you, give it to any Federal employee, who gets a bonus of $21,000, even though they have never been laid off work.

So if you are in Washington, in the swamp, you are part of the team. If you are a hardworking taxpayer, sorry, you just send a bill. But if you are in San Francisco, we are going to help pay for your deficit.

What does it say to the millions of mothers and fathers who had to quit their job to take care of their kids at home or in school? Or compare that to Title X. This bill will allow organizations like Planned Parenthood to access $50 million.

You know, Mr. Speaker, for decades in this body we respected one another's opinion. We created the Hyde amendment that said we would not use taxpayer funds for abortion, but when there is a pandemic and a socialist reign, we are going to charge you $5,000 regardless of how you feel about it, and that is where the money is going to be spent.

Now, the Democrats believe schools should wait a couple years to get their money, but not Planned Parenthood. We have to get that money there quick.

Or compare it to how we fund States, Mr. Speaker. We have always had a formula, but, Mr. Speaker, now that we are going to do the bill this way where there is only one-party rule, we are going to change the formula of how States can get their money.

So let's analyze that. Democrats claim States and local governments need $350 billion.

Now, where do they get that number?

Well, if they read the headlines, it would confirm States are not in financial distress. Nearly half saw an increase in revenue last year. And some, even including my home State of California, they have a budget surplus.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand in Washington they maybe don't understand what the word ``surplus'' means; that means you have more money, that you actually saved money. What California is going to get is a windfall.

Remember, San Francisco is in California. Mr. Speaker, that just happens to be the Speaker's district, as well. They have a $650 million deficit.

Now, some of the challenges that San Francisco has--you see, if you are in San Francisco and you are homeless, they will pay for your alcohol and they will pay for your cannabis. So it costs more money. So that is why you have a deficit.

But it is okay because we don't need to send the schools money today, we can send that years from now, but we need to get San Francisco 92 percent of their deficit taken care of.

Now, we have a pandemic going on, and we are going to spend $1.9 trillion, but only 9 percent of that needs to go to COVID because San Francisco needs a lot of money.

So what they have done now is they reward bad behavior. That is one of the few places that is facing a shortfall. They are actually punishing States that did it right. American taxpayers didn't vote for this, but thanks to the blue State payout, they are. The bill rewards bad behavior.

Now, President Biden, he hasn't had a press conference, but he did say one time, and someone picked it up, ``Show me what to cut.''

Well, the Senate actually cut tens of billions of dollars in spending from the Biden bill that the House passed.

Now, I feel bad, Mr. Speaker, because Speaker Pelosi at first had, like, $112 million for that really important COVID subway just outside of San Francisco. Now, before that bill was able to get to the floor and the public found out about it--I guess it got good press because they added more money to it--it got to $140 million.

Now, when it came to the floor here, there was a group of people-- well, Mr. Speaker, let's just say who it was, it was the Republicans, they thought a better priority was to spend that $140 million for children with mental health issues because we have watched study after study of children being left out of school; suicide, obesity.

What about those children who have parents who don't work for the Federal Government? They don't get a bonus. And some of those parents had to quit their job to care for their children.

So Republicans thought--I know it is a small amount compared to $1.9 trillion--we thought, wouldn't that be a better use of the money? So we offered

that on this floor, Mr. Speaker. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats said ``no'' to that, that this subway was more important than the children.

Well, luckily on the Senate side, they took that out. Whoa, Mr. Speaker, the American public thought for one moment maybe the price could get a little lower and that Americans wouldn't have to pay $5,000 a person. Maybe they saved a little money. No, no, no, no, no.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are in charge of the Senate, too, so they now decided since they couldn't build a subway, they would just plus that money up.

So where did they spend it? Well, Mr. Speaker, you have got to give them credit. They took the same advice that the Democrats in the House had. You see, they added an extra $25,000 bonus for State employees. Let's just not reward the employees of the Federal Government that haven't been laid off, let's reward the State employees who haven't been laid off. They get a $25,000 bonus.

Isn't that amazing? I wonder where the money comes from?

Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, it comes from the American people, the hardworking taxpayers. You see, they all need to send the government $5,000 so you can decide where to spend it. And if you are part of the swamp, that is a pretty good reward. $25,000.

And then they added $15 billion for taxpayer-funded healthcare subsidies that illegal immigrants are eligible for.

Now, you know this, Mr. Speaker, based upon your district and others, you know what is happening down at the border. President Biden has created a new border crisis. There are more people able to come in, not being tested for COVID, but lo and behold, they are now going to get subsidized healthcare. Luckily, we can spend more money on that, Mr. Speaker. There is probably much more coming now with the Biden border crisis.

But will this help the people get back to work? Nope.

Will this help students get back in the classroom? Nope.

But will it help vaccines get to those who want it? Nope.

But will it help take care of 92 percent of San Francisco's budget deficit?

Oh, yes, it will. Yes, it will.

It just throws out money without accountability even though there are a trillion dollars sitting there right now that have already been appropriated that can go out to help.

Remember what Margaret Thatcher said, Mr. Speaker: ``The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'' You have been doing a very good job of it so far.

There is still work to do to defeat the virus, but it is clear we are nearing the final phase of the fight. For 12 terrible months, the American worker has struggled through lockdowns, sacrificed through closures, and suffered through mandates. They persevered through it all. And now their government wants to take $5,000 more of it to make sure a Federal employee that wasn't laid off, a State employee that wasn't laid off gets bonuses. And lo and behold, we have got to make sure San Francisco gets their deficit taken care of. Not in 2 years like the schools, but today.

President Trump's Operation Warp Speed, previous bipartisan efforts in Congress, and the American people worked tirelessly toward that outcome. President Biden was set up for success both economically and with vaccines, but in that short amount of time what have they been able to accomplish down at the Biden administration? They have raised our gasoline prices, so not only are you asking them to pay for this bill, you are taking more out of their pocket, and at the same time by a stroke of a pen he laid off millions of those workers.

Mr. Speaker, I know this for sure, I know where you serve, and I know your passion for serving. I know the people in your district that are getting laid off for the XL pipeline. I know that wasn't your wish. It is harder to pay a bigger tax bill when you don't have a job.

It is even worse when that job was taken away by your President.

It is even worse when you go out to look for a new job and that same President has changed the policy along the border, and now you are competing with people who are not even Americans; and they are getting subsidized healthcare because of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the American public wants something different. I believe they are proud of the fact we did something here that was bipartisan.

I believe they were proud of the fact that because of Operation Warp Speed we now have three vaccines.

I believe they were proud when we were energy independent.

I believe they were proud when they had more money in their pocket, and they didn't have to pay so much for gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, socialism has destroyed many countries. I just watched Venezuela offer new currency. What was it, a million, a billion dollars is worth 50 cents today? How did it all start? I have watched socialism grow in this country. I have watched it grow in this body. I see within your own party you no longer even fear to say that you are Democrats anymore, Mr. Speaker. You are socialist Democrats. That is the lead of the Democratic party. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee isn't even registered as a Democrat. So what would you think would be produced?

Mr. Speaker, whoever votes for this bill, I want you to look the people in the eye. I want you to think about that hardworking taxpayer. I want you to explain to them why only 9 percent goes to defeat COVID. Why do they have to give $5,000, and you redistribute it to people who weren't even laid off? You give bonuses to the things you care most about.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard our Speaker say many times where you spend your money shows your values. Well, she does represent San Francisco, Mr. Speaker, but we don't. Ninety-two percent of the budget deficit of San Francisco is going to be paid with this bill.

But for that parent out there who has been struggling for the last year that has had to be the teacher, the tutor, the coach, the music instructor, the recess participant, help is not on the way. Help is not on the way.

For those who studied government and always thought working something bipartisan would be positive, that is no longer the case.

For those who thought they could have a fair debate on the floor, you take away even the offer to have an amendment. And when we do and we prioritize the children of this Nation over a subway in a district not far from our Speaker, the majority party walks in line.

Mr. Speaker, we are so much better than this. We proved it five other times. What a difference it makes by a simple new control of a power that people want.

Mr. Speaker, when you study history, there is a saying in a book called ``The Prince'' by Machiavelli: ``Absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' The first indication to know if it happens, take a look at the vote. There will be a bipartisan vote against this bill.

You can wave to me. It is okay. I want you to wave to the American public when they have to wave away $5,000, so a Federal employee that never has been laid off gets $21,000 to deal with their children being at home. Who is going to represent them? Who is going to be their voice?

Mr. Speaker, I will promise you this: We will never stop listening to those voices. We will never stop fighting for those voices. And there will be a day that that will be the majority voice in this House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that this year.

History will not be kind about what transpires today, but I still believe that America is a great hope for the future, that we are all conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that we are all equal.

But in this body it seems as though only one can have a voice, but that will not last long and that will change shortly.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

Madam Speaker, this week Democrats are pushing partisan legislation that would change how we conduct elections and how we can speak about political issues. This legislation is the Democrats' most pressing priority. Every single Democrat is a cosponsor.

Democrats made this bill H.R. 1, which is reserved for the bills the majority thinks are the very most important.

Madam Speaker, you know--and those who are watching and those across the country should understand--that when you become the majority, you reserve the first 10 numbers for whatever you want them to be. So this could have been H.R. 2, H.R. 3, H.R. 4, H.R. 5, H.R. 6, all the way up to 10 or go on to any other number.

When I went out to talk to my constituents in the world of COVID who are out of work and out of school, not one of them would think H.R. 1 would be something for politicians to protect themselves to get reelected. But every single Democrat believes that is the case.

It wouldn't just be in my district, but I would say that if you talk to any American, they would say: Back to work, back to school, and back to health.

Madam Speaker, the priorities here are wrong. But it is not just because the Speaker thinks it so, because every single Democrat cosponsored this bill. It was bad when the Democrats introduced it before COVID, and it is bad that they prioritize this over the children going back to school, or people going back to work, or making sure every American who wants a vaccine

gets one. No. It shows the truth about what people think is the worst about people in Congress. They prioritize themselves over everything else.

Let's understand this bill. After a year of our country suffering through a pandemic, the Democrats' first piece of legislation does not help the millions of students still out of school, and it does not help the 10 million Americans who are still unemployed. No. Democrat legislation only helps themselves. Democrats want to use their razor- thin majority, not to pass bills to earn voters' trust, but to ensure they don't lose more seats in the next election.

Madam Speaker, I know the leadership on the other side predicted that they would win 20 seats. They only lost. I know that this is the most razor-thin majority the Democrats have seen in the last 100 years, so I guess that is why it is the top priority for every single Democrat.

Now, there are problems with this bill, so let's understand it.

First, H.R. 1 sends public dollars to fund political campaigns. Yes.

Can you believe that, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, it is the number one priority you got elected to Congress to do. Forget everything else, I want to make sure I get more taxpayer money to fund my own campaign. I have to make sure I get reelected--not that the kids go back to school and not to distribute vaccines--to create a slush fund so that politicians can run for reelection.

Let me explain it to you, Madam Speaker. It is in the fine print. Let's say someone donates $200 to a preferred candidate. Under H.R. 1, taxpayers now must chip in not $200, but $1,200.

Where in the world can you get that type of return on your investment?

That is amazing.

You talk somebody into giving you $200 for your campaign, Madam Speaker, so the taxpayers now have to give you $1,200. No wonder you made it the most important bill because it only focuses on you.

Democrats want to raise this money through new fines on corporations which the government will use to pay for campaigns and political consultants. I guess Democrats don't actually believe corporate money is bad in politics.

Today, corporations can't give. I guess they found a loophole to help them.

Second, H.R. 1 weakens the security of our elections by making it harder to protect against voter fraud. This bill automatically registers voters from the DMV and other government databases such as food stamps. In most cases it would prevent officials from removing ineligible voters from the rolls and make it harder to verify the accuracy of voter information. Currently, an estimated 24 million voter records across the country appear to be inaccurate or invalid, and as we saw during the pandemic, this created chaos and confusion.

It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Everyone has a personal story of a friend, their family, or their neighbor receiving a ballot they shouldn't have. Every one of those stories erodes trust in election integrity. Yet, under H.R. 1, future voters can be dead or illegal immigrants or maybe even registered two to three times. I guess Democrats just don't care, as long as they get reelected.

Third, H.R. 1 rewrites election laws and imposes one-size-fits-all partisan rules from Washington.

Under the Constitution, we generally defer to States and counties to run elections. Democrats want to change that. First, they outlaw Dr. Seuss, and now they want to tell us what to say.

They want to remove reasonable debates about early voting, registration, and no-excuse mail-in balloting from the States and counties and resolve them with a single Federal solution decided by the whims of Washington. It is not unusual, because I know the committee is also looking at, even though someone didn't win an election, appointing somebody different in Congress.

They want to stop States from listening to their residents on the very best way to protect ballot integrity, whether it is passing voter I.D. laws or using basic safeguards like checking their voter rolls against the Post Office change-of-address system.

They want to mandate no-excuse mail-in balloting and 15 days of early voting as the post-pandemic norm.

Madam Speaker, in the last election, at least twice a week somebody would send me a picture of the ballots that were mailed to their home of people who had died or of people who had not lived there in 8 years. This would guarantee that continues.

Fourth, H.R. 1 politicizes the Federal Election Commission by turning it from an evenly divided commission into a partisan one. But they are also going to create a speech czar.

Can you imagine? The Federal Election Commission has an even number of Republicans and an even number of Democrats. You have the smallest majority you have had in more than 100 years, so your number one priority is to make sure you can't keep that bipartisan. Let's put our thumb on the scale and make sure we get one more Democrat than Republican. Then we can create a speech czar and tell people what to say and what they can't say.

So they can't tell us in a bill we just passed that there is $140 million for a subway just outside the Speaker's office. That would be wrong. But we also could get $200, but get $1,200 from the taxpayer. Who wouldn't want this bill? Every single Democrat does.

H.R. 1 weaponizes the IRS--can you imagine that--by allowing the IRS to consider an organization's political views before granting tax exemptions. Now, they are going to pick and choose. You know, I thought this was unbelievable until I read this document.

If you live in China and you want to fly on an airline, you can walk up to the desk, you can have your money, but that doesn't determine whether you get a ticket. You know what determines whether you get a ticket? Your score; what you have said. And if you said something that the government doesn't like, you can't fly on that plane. Unbelievable, right? That could never happen in America.

Well, now we have a speech czar, we have made sure the Federal Election Commission is where they are, and now we weaponize the IRS to do exactly that.

Remember, under President Obama's IRS, this power was abused by Lois Lerner and other bureaucrats to target conservative nonprofits during the 2012 election. It was a massive scandal, a clear and intolerable violation of public trust, and a crime, which is why singling out groups for political views is banned.

One hundred thirty nonprofits wrote to Congress to strongly object to H.R. 1. Why would nonprofits object to this? They said America should be able to ``support causes we believe in without the fear of harassment or intimidation.'' Well, I guess they are right, because if this majority makes the number one issue--in a world of a pandemic, unemployment, and kids out of school--the protection of themselves, I would be afraid, too.

If you are serious about restoring public trust in government, the ban must remain in place.

Madam Speaker, Democrats call H.R. 1 the For the People Act, but it really should be called the for the politicians act. It is not designed to protect Americans' vote. It is designed to put a thumb on the scale in every election in America so that Democrats can turn a temporary majority into permanent control. It is an unparalleled political grab. I urge all my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his work as the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am about to say something that the American people don't want to hear: the swamp is back.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: The swamp is back.

Every day since January 20, the Democrats have sided with their special interest allies and ignored the real needs of the American people. The result is the bill before us today--or I should say tomorrow.

Congress won't actually vote on this bill until about 2 a.m. Saturday morning.

Why?

Because Democrats are so embarrassed by all the non-COVID waste in this bill, they are jamming it through in the dead of night.

We ran the numbers. The amount of money that actually goes to defeating the virus is less than 9 percent. So don't call it a rescue bill and don't call it a relief bill. If you are a friend of the Speaker, you do pretty well under this bill. But for the American people, it is a loser.

Let's consider Medicare. Tonight, the CBO confirmed that this bill will cost $36 billion in cuts to Medicare starting this year. If Members vote for this bill, I want them to go back to their districts and look the seniors in the eye and look at the hospitals, those who have been working night and day, and tell them why you voted to cut their health benefits.

Or consider the blue State bailout. This bill calls for States and local governments to receive $350 billion. Most States are not in financial distress. Nearly half saw an increase in their revenue last year, and some--even including my home State of California, and the Speaker's as well--actually have a budget surplus. But none of that money is tied to reopening.

Or consider elite institutions, Harvard and others. This bill calls for them to receive hundreds of millions of dollars, but Harvard already has a $40 billion endowment.

Compare that to K-12 education. This bill allocates only $6 billion to help reopen American schools in fiscal year 2021. More than two- thirds of the education funding would not be spent until 2023 or later.

Almost every one of this bill's 592 pages includes a liberal pipe dream that predates the pandemic. Let's check the fine print.

On page 97, for those of you who have not read it, it hands out healthcare subsidies to illegal immigrants.

On page 347, it fast-tracks $1.5 billion to Amtrak. Now, Amtrak has $1.5 billion from the last package they haven't even spent.

On page 306, it gives Federal employees up to an extra $21,000 to help cope with virtual schooling. Let me read that so every American understands: If you are a Federal employee, you get an extra $21,000 to cope with virtual schooling. There are a lot of Federal employees who are going to vote for this bill tonight. But if you are one of the millions of parents outside of Washington, outside of the swamp, who are struggling through school closures, including the 1 million mothers who had to quit their jobs to take care of their kids at home with school, and the fathers that quit, you are ignored.

On page 358, it funnels--earlier, it funneled less, just a little over $100 million. But last night, the Rules Committee was able to add more, up to $140 million for a subway tunnel near Speaker Pelosi's district.

When you add it all up, the size of this payoff is jaw-dropping: $1.9 trillion in new spending. It is the single most expensive spending bill ever.

But will it help people get back to work? No. Will it help students get back in the classroom immediately? No. Will it help get vaccines to those who want it? The answer is no.

It doesn't spend a third of the entire cost of the bill for another 2 years, undermining the claim that this bill is so urgent. This money won't be spent for another 2 years.

It doesn't have any guardrails to protect against fraud, which has already cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, including especially in California. It just throws out money without accountability, even though we have over $1 trillion unspent from the last bill.

President Biden promised unity, but Democrats are delivering one- party rule.

Mr. Speaker, based on the facts, the Democrats' spending bill is too costly, too corrupt, and just too liberal for this country.

To my colleagues who say this bill is bold, I say it is bloated. To those who say it is urgent, I say it is unfocused. To those who say it is popular, I say it is entirely partisan and has the wrong priorities.

Republicans will support whatever is needed to get America back to work, back to school, and back to health. After 12 months of struggling, suffering, and sacrificing, that is what Americans want, what they need, and what they deserve.

That is why Republicans will introduce a motion to recommit to bolster the resources that families can access to help their children cope with the emotional stress of school closures. And it won't be for parents who just work for the Federal Government. It will be for all American parents.

In every single district, if you watch, the anxiety and the fear for children have risen, the 3 million children that now mark a year that they have not been in the classroom. Our proposal would shift the $140 million from Speaker Pelosi's subway to grants that would be used for mental health services for children. It puts children first, not the swamp.

Democrats have conveniently ignored the education and mental health crisis affecting our children, but failing to address it is unacceptable. Families deserve answers. Tonight, they will finally get them.

Our colleagues, it is a very clear and concise question you have before you. If you vote for the bill, you are cutting Medicare, you are cutting your hospitals, you are cutting your health providers with your vote.

If you vote against the motion to recommit, which you changed, you are picking $140 million that you just added last night to a subway tunnel just outside of the Speaker's district.

So, who do you pick? All American parents, to give them the grants and the resources they need to cope with their children's anxiety, the rise of suicide, and their mental health; or do you think that subway is really appropriate, right here, right now?

Make a decision. Is the swamp back, or do hardworking American taxpayers come first? It is an easy question. It is easy for me to decide, and I think it is easy for America to decide as well.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats won the House by the slimmest of margins in November. In fact, it is the slimmest Democrat majority since 1875, a mere five seats. 31,718 votes are what determines the majority. Their victory in the other branches was also tight, 50/50 on the Senate side.

Usually, when one party has a tiny majority, they recognize that governing requires compromise. Not this majority.

Less than 2 months into controlling the House, despite promising to solve problems and restore democracy, Democrats have proven that their primary goal is not governing but grievance, the politics of censorship, not common ground.

In January, they eliminated the motion to recommit, the last chance for the minority to improve legislation, without a single Republican vote. It will go down in history as the first time in the history of this body that a majority did that, deny the minority, the millions of constituents, their voice.

Already, millions have lost their voice in Congress due to the brazen partisanship. What Democrats are doing this week is even worse.

Today, they will hold a subcommittee hearing that will focus on broadcasters' and cable news' devotion to journalistic integrity. This explanation should concern every American.

It has never been Congress' role to define and enforce journalistic standards. The First Amendment expressly prohibits the government from controlling what the press says.

But Democrats are trying to give themselves the power to dictate what you can read and watch in your own home. And their assault on free speech goes beyond today's disgraceful hearing.

On Monday, Representatives Eshoo and McNerney sent a letter to 12 cable, streaming, and satellite companies, essentially threatening them to remove ``Fox News'', ``Newsmax'', and ``One America News Network'' from their airways.

Here is just a quick snapshot of the answers they are demanding from the carriers:

``What moral or ethical principles do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?''

``What steps did you take to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans?''

Then the other question, coming from Congress in a majority of a committee: ``Are you planning to continue to carry `Fox News', `Newsmax', `One America News Network', both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?''

Now, I am not an attorney, but some people have asked me, does that reach an ethical complaint against these Members by using undue influence?

I don't know. I guess the Ethics Committee would have to decide that.

These are Members of Congress who are using their official position to coerce and control the information Americans can watch and access in their own homes. They are demanding more censorship, more deplatforming, and more control of what Americans can watch.

In their letter, Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman McNerney suggest that censorship is necessary because conservative views are not only different, but they are dangerous. This is not only false; it is the same script used in countries like China to silence speech they disagree with.

Democrats would bring those same socialist standards to America, but those standards are dangerous, vague, and easily abused. They have no place here.

Democrats' action this week make it clear that the greatest threat to free speech today is not a law from Congress, which is bound by the First Amendment. The greatest threat is politicians who bully private companies to silence dissenting views.

The sad part is it isn't only Democrats who have done this. They sent a letter to a company of Amazon that was created to sell books, to tell them not to sell books.

Lastly, beyond these serious threats to free speech, the irony of Democrats' actions this week should not be lost on us. For the last 4 years, we were told that the greatest danger to free speech was President Trump.

To underscore this accusation, the liberal legacy newspaper in Washington adopted its first official slogan: ``Democracy dies in darkness.''

As usual, the heated rhetoric from the other side was off base-- badly. The same party that is now worried about misinformation rumor mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds was comfortable with endorsing destructive and false narratives for 4 years.

Back in August, Congresswoman Eshoo herself basically alleged that the Trump administration was intentionally attacking the U.S. Postal Service. She called it election theft and a campaign of sabotage.

How about Congressman Adam Schiff? For years, he said he had more than circumstantial evidence of Russian collusion. We all found that to be false. Nevertheless, networks like ``MSNBC'' continue to perpetuate the baseless accusation. I wonder if they sent a letter there.

Or how about our own Speaker Pelosi, who said in 2017, ``Our election was hijacked. There is no question.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people are capable of making decisions about how best to live their lives. They deserve to decide how to take care of their families or open their businesses during a pandemic. And they deserve to decide to watch the news, judge the information they choose, and draw their own conclusions about its accuracy. They need us to trust them, not to try to control them.

If Democrats accepted robust debate, they would find that more people would trust Washington.

Mr. Speaker, this is a body that is using its power to try to determine

what books can be printed, what shows can be seen, and what can be said.

Mr. Speaker, we have debated on this floor the things that happen in China. And in China, if you try to buy an airline ticket you could have the money, but they have an app there. And they say, first, we have to check.

They have had people in their own press that were told: I am sorry, you can't take the plane.

Why?

You have said something that government doesn't like. You should apologize.

The reporter apologized but the government thought it wasn't sincere enough.

To me, it is something I would fight because I believe in free speech.

I thought that was farfetched in a faraway land. I never thought it would be written on paper in the U.S. Congress, and the powerful members of a committee that oversees jurisdiction would threaten people of why they carry a network and will they carry that network in the future; and if so, why?

I never thought I would see Members of Congress use their power to threaten others to go against the First Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we will not stand for it, nor will the American public. This is not a partisan issue; this is a constitutional issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 72. This resolution sets a dangerous new standard that will only deepen divisions within this House.

For all of their talk about norms and institutions, it is the Democrats who have acted to undermine the people's House at every turn.

Let's check the Record. Afraid for their political careers, they have moved to shut down debate and silence dissent in committee and on this floor. They went so far as to eliminate the motion to recommit--the minority party's only chance to offer an amendment--which stood for over a century until this year.

They have rushed impeachment through without a shred of due process, just like today, reducing this tool from the highest constitutional remedy to just another opportunity to fundraise and go on TV.

And now, they are declaring the majority has veto power over the minority's member selections for committee.

We have reviewed this with the historians. Never before in the history of this House has the majority abused its power in this way. Never in the entire history of this House have you ever abused the power in this way.

But it is clear Speaker Pelosi's Caucus thinks differently. They are blinded by partisanship and politics, and it is the American people who will suffer the most because of it.

Mr. Speaker, as for the Member in question, let me be very clear: Representative Greene's past comments and posts as a private citizen do not represent the values of my party. As a Republican, as a conservative, as an American, I condemn those views unequivocally. I condemned them when they first surfaced, and I condemn them today.

Mr. Speaker, this House overwhelmingly voted to condemn the dangerous lies of QAnon last Congress and continues to do so. I made this clear when I met with Representative Greene.

I also made clear that we, as Members, have a responsibility to hold ourselves to a higher standard. She acknowledged this during our conversation and apologized for her past comments. I will hold her to her words and her actions moving forward.

Because these comments caused such deep wounds, I offered Leader Hoyer a path to lower the temperature and address these concerns in a productive way. I offered to remove Representative Greene from the Committee on Education and Labor, but it was rejected. It was rejected.

Now, privately, I have had calls from many Democrats, acknowledging what they are doing is wrong. They understand that this partisan power grab is not only cynical, it is hypocritical. If this is the new standard, I look forward to continuing out the standard because if you look for a side that has a leadership that has done something when their Members do something as a Member, not prior, look to me, because I did just that.

But when a Democrat freshman said, ``Israel has hypnotized the world,'' that supporting Israel is ``all about the Benjamins,'' and that 9/11 was ``some people did something,'' did Speaker Pelosi kick her off the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or did she keep her on the committee and even pose with her on the cover of a magazine?

Will the standard change?

When another Democrat was compromised by a Chinese spy, and it was so serious that the FBI had to brief congressional leaders, did Speaker Pelosi remove him from the House Committee on Intelligence or the Committee on Homeland Security after the briefing?

I am the only other person that had that same briefing just recently. I was in the room with the Speaker. I heard what was said. I will be very clear: I would never have that Member on either of those committees.

Or did she reward him by making him the head of the subcommittee overseeing the CIA?

I guess there are different standards.

Mr. Speaker, when the chairman of the Committee on Rules objected to certifying the 2016 election, citing Russian interference, did Speaker Pelosi censure him?

How about when the chairwoman of the Committee on Financial Services told supporters at a rally in 2017--she was a Member then, unlike the person we are talking about today--``If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere.''

After she called for violence against public servants, did Speaker Pelosi condemn it, or did she look the other way and make her chairwoman again?

I don't know if you want to amend this one and add others so you can keep your standard. The answer is obvious. While Democrats attack Congresswoman Greene, they not only ignore the infractions within their own party, they reward these Members with prestige and influence.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes time to vote, I expect Democrats will codify this partisan power grab. I would advise them to think twice and pull this resolution from the floor while they still can.

I have heard Democrats quote the Senate minority leader to defend this resolution. I would remind them what Leader McConnell said when Democrats voted to nuke the judicial filibuster: ``You will regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.''

If that is the new standard, if people are held to what they have said prior to even being in this House, if the majority party gets to decide who sits on whatever committees, I hope you keep that standard because we have a long list you can work within your own.

Mr. Speaker, in the end, this resolution is merely a distraction from the real issues. In the last 2 weeks, Democrats have taken just two votes: the one today and the one last month on a waiver for a Cabinet member.

This is the least productive Congress since last year. I thought that would be hard to beat.

There is nothing for workers who have lost their jobs, including thousands of blue-collar jobs that were eliminated just by a stroke of a pen of President Biden, even laying off the union workers who endorsed him. It is a shame. They need that job. It is a good-paying job. Nobody sat and talked to them before or asked them. They just laid them off.

Nothing for students who have been stuck learning from behind screens for nearly a year, even though the administration's CDC Director says in-person learning is safe.

Nothing to increase the pace of vaccine distributions so we can get them to people who want them and get one step closer to fully reopening this economy.

At a time when households are already struggling, Congress should use its window of opportunity to get Americans back to work, kids back to school, and vaccines for any American who wants it.

These are the immediate priorities that deserve our energy and our attention. This is what we would work on if we had the opportunity to be in the majority or even had the same opportunity that those in the minority had for last 100 years: to offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, a House distracted cannot govern, and we are proving it one more time today. Let's stop trying to invent dangerous and divisive ways to abuse the power of a majority and start working on what really matters.

No one supports what was said before a person ever became a Member. When a Member said something that was inappropriate on this side of the aisle, we removed them from committee because they said it when they were a Member.

As we list the long list of the standards on the other side, no, no one ever

got removed. They got rewarded. And now, the more than 200-year-history in this body is going to change. But if it changed as a standard to reach all, I will be right here with you.

If the concern was really what the majority leader said to me about being on the Committee on Education and Labor, I am the first one to switch it. I actually offered it. That would be appropriate.

But not for this majority. They believe something different, and that is wrong, just as the words that were said were wrong.

That Member came to this floor to answer those questions. She did it as a Member of Congress, not as a private citizen, when they were said.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to President Biden as I watched him sworn in. I heard the word ``unity.'' That is why I reached out, as well. If there is concern about education, we can fix that. If there is concern on the other side about working with people or getting laid off with every stroke of every executive order, I will work to fix that. If there is concern about getting kids back in school, we will work on that. If there is concern about getting a vaccine to any American who wants it, we will work on that.

But unfortunately, the majority gets to decide what comes to the floor. And once again, this Congress will get listed as the least productive Congress in history.

But the one thing it will have a record of is changing the rules to be one-sided, a long history that I believe this body will be embarrassed by.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear: Last week's violent attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American, and criminal. Violence is never a legitimate form of protest. Freedom of speech and assembly under the Constitution is rooted in nonviolence. Yet the violent mob that descended upon this body was neither peaceful nor democratic. It acted to disrupt Congress' constitutional responsibility. It was also an attack on the people who work in this institution: Members, staff, and the hundreds who work behind the scenes so that we can serve the American people.

The greatest statesman in the history of our country understood that the most dangerous threat to freedom is lawlessness. A young lawyer named Abraham Lincoln famously said, ``There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.''

Yet, for several hours last week, mob law tried to interfere with constitutional law.

Some say the riots were caused by antifa. There is absolutely no evidence of that, and Conservatives should be the first to say so.

Conservatives also know that the only thing that stops mob violence is to meet it with force rooted in justice and backed by moral courage. Last week, we saw mob violence met by courage, sacrifice, and heroism from the brave men and women who protect this institution every day. But for the bravery of the Capitol Police, the destruction and loss could have been

much greater. We owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

The loss of Officer Brian Sicknick and Officer Howard Liebengood was tragic and heartbreaking. We mourn their loss, remember their lives, and continue to pray for their families and loved ones.

The officers of the Capitol Police deserve our eternal thanks. We will never forget the dangers they faced, the determination they showed, or the sacrifices they made.

Make no mistake, those who are responsible for Wednesday's chaos will be brought to justice, which brings me to today's debate. I believe impeaching the President in such a short timeframe would be a mistake.

No investigations have been completed. No hearings have been held. What is more, the Senate has confirmed that no trial will begin until after President-elect Biden is sworn in.

But here is what a vote to impeach would do. A vote to impeach would further divide this Nation. A vote to impeach will further fan the flames of partisan division.

Most Americans want neither inaction nor retribution. They want durable, bipartisan justice. That path is still available, but it is not the path we are on today.

That doesn't mean the President is free from fault. The President bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.

These facts require immediate action by President Trump: accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term.

And the President's immediate action also deserves congressional action, which is why I think a factfinding commission and a censure resolution would be prudent. Unfortunately, that is not where we are today.

Truly, this past week was one of the most difficult for Congress and our Nation. Of all the days here, last Wednesday was the worst day I have ever seen in Congress. Our country is deeply hurt.

So, where do we go from here? After all the violence and chaos of the last week, it is important to remember that we are still here to deliver a better future for all Americans. It does not matter if you are liberal, moderate, or conservative; all of us must resist the temptations of further polarization. Instead, we must unite once again as Americans.

I understand, for some, this call for unity may ring hollow, but times like these are when we must remember who we are as Americans and what we, as a nation, stand for.

As history shows, unity is not an option; it is a necessity. It is as necessary today as it was at the start of our country. I want us all to think back to how John Adams and the Federalist Party handed power over to Thomas Jefferson and his party after the election of 1800.

That election and, indeed, that era was one of the most divisive ever. Partisans used every dirty trick in the book. They demonized each other, dismissed reasonable dissent, and described their opponents as seditious. Sound familiar?

The election of 1800 could have destroyed our young Nation, but instead of breaking us, it helped bring us together, thereby preserving the world's last best hope of freedom. After a hard-fought battle over the electoral college in Congress, Adams conceded. A peaceful transfer of power, the first in American history, took place.

Jefferson, for his part, put aside the division of the era and preached forgiveness and, yes, unity. In his first inaugural address, he famously said: ``Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.''

Jefferson and Adams did not end every difference of opinion that existed in America, nor did they try. In a free country as big and diverse as ours, that would be impossible. What they did was more important. They recognized the deeper unity, a unity rooted in the famous proposition both men helped to write. At a critical moment in history, our Founders chose peace, liberty, and partnership over tension, division, and partisanship.

For the sake of our country, we must make the exact same choice. We have already begun.

Last week, despite the lingering shock and amid the windows still broken, we did what all healthy democracies do. We debated, and we voted. In this country, we solve our disputes at the ballot box and through debates and votes on the floor of this exact Chamber. We did our duty then, and we must do more.

The eyes of the Nation and the world are upon us. We must seize this opportunity and heal and grow stronger. As leaders, our place in history depends on whether we call on our better angels and refocus our efforts to work directly for the American people.

United, we can deliver the peace, strength, and prosperity our country desperately needs. Divided, we will fail.

What we saw last week was not the American way. Neither is the continued rhetoric that Joe Biden is not the legitimate President.

Let's be clear: Joe Biden will be sworn in as President of the United States in 1 week because he won the election.

And his Presidency and this Congress will face immediate challenges that must be addressed. I stand ready to assist in that effort with good faith, goodwill, and an open hand.

The United States remains exceptional. We remain extraordinary. In the coming weeks and months, we must work together, all of us, to recharge the light of our shining city on the hill.

History has shown us a way. History has given us a path. Just as Adams and Jefferson have shown, now is the moment that we should do the exact same.

In these trying times, may God continue to bless America. Let's chart a course that history will repeat but not what is happening today.

Madam Speaker, I rise for a point of personal privilege to address the House for 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise to address what happened in this Chamber today and where do we go from here.

The violence, destruction, and chaos we saw earlier was unacceptable, undemocratic, and un-American. It was the saddest day I have ever had serving as a Member of this institution.

The Capitol was in chaos. Police officers were attacked. Guns were drawn on this very floor. A woman tragically lost her life.

No one wins when this building and what it stands for are destroyed. America, and this institution, is better than that.

We saw the worst of America this afternoon. Yet, in the midst of violence and fear, we also saw the best of America.

It starts with our law enforcement--the Capitol Police, the National Guard, the FBI, and the Secret Service--who faced the most difficult challenges but did their duty with confidence and strength. Many of them are injured right now.

It also extends to this Chamber, where both Democrats and Republicans showed courage, calm, and resolve.

I would like to recognize the Members now who helped to hold the line: Markwayne Mullin, Tony Gonzales, Jason Crow, Pat Fallon, and Troy Nehls. Working with the Capitol Police, they ensured the floor of this Chamber was never breached. These are the heroes among us. Thank you for the show of courage.

Looking back on the past few hours, it is clear this Congress will not be the same after today, and I hope it will be the better. I hope not just this institution, but I hope every American pauses for that moment and thinks among themselves that we can disagree with one another but not dislike each other; we can respect the voices of others.

There are many times we debate in this body, and we should. There are many times we can get heated. I still consider Steny Hoyer a very good friend. There are times I get upset, and I will call him at home to express the things I may not see fair or just, but that is the way we should handle things.

The majority leader is right: We are all Americans first.

But we should also think for a moment: What do we put on social media? What do we convey to one another? Just because you have a personal opinion different than mine, you have a right to say it, but nobody has a right to become a mob. And we all should stand united in condemning the mob together.

We solve problems before our Nation, not through destruction, but through debate. That is the heart of this democracy. I know what we debate today is tough, but it is just; it is right.

This isn't the first side of the aisle that has ever debated this issue. I thought of what Madam Speaker said back in 2005, ``this is democracy at its best,'' when they talked about a Presidential election in Ohio.

These are the moments that we should raise the issue about integrity and accountability and accuracy in our elections. But you know what we should do, the next difference? Not just raise the issue, but work together to solve the problems.

Now is the moment to show America we can work best together. I will tell you, the size of the majority is slim, so it gives us the opportunity to make that happen. The only thing that can hold us back is the will of one another to do it.

This side of the aisle always believes in working with anybody who wants to move it forward. That does not mean that we are going to agree 100 percent of the time. That does not mean our voice cannot be heard. That does not mean we cannot be treated fairly; we should be. That may mean on the size of committees, that means on our ability to offer an amendment, that means on our ability to have our voice. But at the end of the day, it helps us come to a better conclusion.

By returning here to complete the work we were sent to do, we are proving that our democracy cannot be disrupted by criminal behavior. We will not falter; we will not bend; and we will not shrink from our duty.

Let me be very clear: Mobs don't rule America. Laws rule America. It was true when our cities were burning this summer, and it is true now.

When Americans go to bed tonight, their lasting memory should not be a Congress overrun by rioters. It must be a resolute Congress conducting healthy debate.

We may disagree on a lot in America, but tonight we should show the world that we will respectfully, but thoroughly, carry out the most basic duties of democracy.

We will continue with the task that we have been sent here to do. We will follow the Constitution and the law and the process for hearing valid concerns about election integrity. We will do it with respect.

We will respect your opinion, we will respect what you say, and we are willing to listen to it. I think the Nation will be better for it on both sides of the aisle. Let's show the country the mob did not win. We have a job to do. Let's do it with pride and let's be better when the sun rises tomorrow.